Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 12



Category:LDP Members

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ldp members


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category exists as Category:League for Democracy Party politicians which is the correct form for political parties. Tassedethe (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:League for Democracy Party politicians, per nom. (I realize that it is currently in that category, but that may change between now and the close of the nomination.) The use of "members" is problematic because it could lead to individuals who simply hold membership, but no office, with a political party being categorized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. The most prominent LDP would I think be the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, so this is a very bad name -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge -- This is about the correct category for a single article. We do not like abbreviations in WP as they are not obvious, except to cogniscenti.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Khem Veasna

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting khem veasna


 * Propose deleting veasna family


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete eponymous category that contains a single article and 2 subcategories, each containing the same article Khem Veasna. Second subcat Category:LDP Members nominated above. Tassedethe (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete both - I think that these pages were created due to a misunderstanding of how categorization works. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both per Black Falcon's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both as completely unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Category:Jewish-Christian polemics

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge, without renaming the target. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Jewish-Christian polemics to Category:Christianity and Judaism related controversies
 * Nominator's rationale: Three reasons, each of which separately is maybe not strong enough, but in conjunction I think they are.
 * There's not too much difference between polemic and controversy, i.e. it's not very easy to see why some articles are in the one category while other articles are in the other category.
 * The polemics category is relatively small.
 * There is no other category that I know of which has polemics in the name (while for controversies there is quite a big tree).
 * Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, and also note that the parent will need to be moved to Category:Christianity and Judaism-related controversies. SFB 19:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which parent do you mean? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, you intend to rename the parent to include a dash. With a dash, would it be clear that it's meant to be (Christianity and Judaism)-related controversies and not meant to be Christianity and (Judaism-related controversies)? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Do not add a dash per the ambiguity outlined by Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Facebook User

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Speed delete per CSD G4 (reposting of XfD-ed material). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting facebook user


 * Nominator's rationale: User categories are intended to aid in the improvement of the encyclopedia. Grouping users with a Facebook presence doesn't advance this goal. Delete. (Note: Category:Wikipedians who use Facebook was deleted in 2007.) - Eureka Lott 21:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The 2007 discussion was short on logic, but the above nomination hits the nail on the head. The category structure is not to facilitate purely social aspects of Wikipedia. I advocate deletion of the category, but I would support the continued use of the template on userpages with no category function. SFB 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just as irrelevant to collaboration on Wikipedia as it was in 2007.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Communist Canadians

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting communist canadians
 * Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated user category is for supporters of the Communist Party of Canada. It is, therefore, a grouping of user on the basis of a political affiliation that is irrelevant for building an encyclopedia; all similar user categories expressing support for or opposition to an organization (including political parties), or espousing a particular political ideology, have been deleted. I think that this category was missed by those previous nominations only because its title is missing the 'Wikipedian(s)' prefix/suffix that would identify it as a user category. (Category creator not notified due to long-term inactivity.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedian categories should not be confusable with content categorization. Clearly there are articles on people who are Canadian and Communist, which is what one would suspect is the topic of the category. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per norms; one's political affiliation doesn't add to the community's writing an encyclopedia. Want a soapbox, go elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Government ministries of Pakistan

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. I note that we already have Category:Federal ministers of Pakistan. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Government ministries of Pakistan to Category:Federal government ministries of Pakistan
 * Nominator's rationale: The category should be renames as there are number of ministries of same for provincial governments. So to remove confusion in future when some makes article for those provincial govt ministries  Sulaimandaud (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't see to have any article on things like Ministry of Health Punjab, so no further definition is required. If provincial articles do emerge, we could create Category:Provincial government ministries of Pakistan as a child category, and keeping the current title would help with creating such a tree (otherwise we would need a container with nothing in but a split between federal and provincial). SFB 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename. Pakistan is a federal state, and I don't see a good reason to oppose this. The provincial ministries in Pakistan are probably notable and could well have articles, and I see no benefit in not specifying at this stage that these are articles about federal ministries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian Revolution films

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Russian Revolution films, without prejudice to a future decision to settle what format to use for . Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Russian Revolution films to Category:Films about the Russian Revolution
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, and restructure carefully. The nominated category seems to have been created following the pattern in, but has a different naming standard. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Although I do agree that we need only one of these categories and consider the 'Films about...' format to be clearer, I do not see a clear naming standard within Category:Films about revolutions: seven members use 'Foo Revolution films' and four use 'Films about the Foo Revolution'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a bit of a mess. Stefanomione is one category creator who has created both types, seemingly using the 'films about foo' and 'foo films' interchangeably. Or it's possible he used one, then switched over to 'films about foo' when he realized at Cfd that that was preferred, without going back and changing the others. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or reverse merge. No preference for which name we end up with. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete "films about" has the intractable subjectivity problem of how much "about" the subject must the film be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge to get rid of "films about" per Carlossuarez46. Category:Partisan films is an example of a small film category that works better with the shorter version. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films about the People's Republic of China

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting films about the people's republic of china


 * Nominator's rationale: Here's another outlier "Films about country" category - in this case, an underpopulated container category that we can simply delete, as the two subcats are categorized elsewhere. BTW, if this passes I will speedily rename the documentary subcat, per C2C, to merely "China." I think a C2C would pass even now, but just to be sure I'll wait. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, the other parent Category:Films set in China is sufficient. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete "films about" categories have the intractable subjectivity problem of how much "about" the subject must the film be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marathoning

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Marathoning to Category:Marathon running
 * Nominator's rationale: I feel "marathon running" is the more idiomatic term to encompass this field. It also helps distinguish the sport from other sports that use the term marathoning, such as Ironman triathlon and car racing (e.g. London–Sydney Marathon). Colloquially, marathoning of TV shows (i.e. many in one go) is becoming more common. The new title makes the subject very explicit SFB 09:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename, supported by this Ngram. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the rationale of the nom and User:Fayenatic london. (Disclosure: I followed this from post in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Athletics.) Location (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Special forces of the Israeli Navy

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Special forces of the Israeli Navy to Category:Israeli Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Israeli Air Force Special Units to Category:Special forces of Israel
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. The single member page is already in the other parent category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The intersections of and  are sufficiently narrow in themselves. I would also support this same logic if the similar  were added to this nomination. SFB 10:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have added that; in its case, the current categories on the contents require merging to the other parent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Energy costs

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Energy economics and Category:Economic history. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Energy costs to Category:Energy economics
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Overcategorization. This category has only few entries and except of Cost of electricity by source and Template:Cost of energy sources, it is not about cost but about prices and pricing. Although it is a related topic, it is not the same. The only reason to keep this category could be an inclusion to Category:Costs. However, Category:Costs has only two other subcats and therefore Category:Energy costs does not needed for the categorization system. The issue with Cost of electricity by source and Template:Cost of energy sources could be resolved by adding them directly to Category:Costs. Beagel (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom - as long as the articles on pricing are brought into Category:Pricing, where they more logically fit. Also, I don't think should be a child of . The ideas are related to each other, but in no way is a cost a sub-type of pricing. SFB 10:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Double upmerge to Category:Energy economics and Category:Economic history – I have just added the latter as a parent. The other parent,, is about economic theory rather than historical pricing, so the member pages do not belong in there. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.